More Problems At Newsweek
By Ed Driscoll · May 22, 2005 10:40 AM · Oh, That Liberal Media!
Via InstaPundit, we find overseas editions of Newsweek putting the American flag into a garbage can on its cover. (Glenn Reynolds wryly observes, "And yet they're complaining about Koran-in-the-toilet reports.")

That Newsweek's international editions make the domestic edition of Newsweek look as patriotic as National Review or Fox News is reminiscent of something that Fox's Roger Ailes once said about how CNNi differs from the version of CNN we watch (well, based on the ratings, don't watch) in the US. We wrote in early February, just as the Eason Jordan scandal was coming to a boil:

Incidentally, back in December, Roger Ailes told Brian Lamb that as bad as the main CNN cable channel can be, CNNi, their international feed, which Jordan helped to launch, is much worse--almost Al Jazeera worse. Of course, that's also good for business:
Well, the best way to get distribution around the world is to be the BBC or Al Jazeera or CNNi, basically do -- if you watch it day in and day out, you can't find a whole lot good about America. Now, they have no obligation to do good stories about America, but they do have an obligation to have balance and context. And Al Jazeera simply doesn't. BBC doesn't. And CNNi is less offensive, but they don't do it much, either. And I think that context is critically important to the news.
I guess I'm still naive about just how bad the problem is inside the mainstream media: I still find it hard to believe that as bad as the domestic version of Newsweek can be, its international version can be worse.

But it certainly sounds like a pattern with big media, doesn't it?

The next time the press--or Hollywood--asks, "Why do they hate us?", it might want to take a good hard look in the mirror.

Incidentally, that Newsweek cover may be even worse than it initially appears. A reader of Little Green Footballs translates the text on the Newsweek cover to read:

The red text at the left just above the Newsweek logo says:

America forsaken.

The big white and yellow text says:

The Day America Died  The ideal of freedom falls to the ground due to Bush continuing in office.

(Emphasis mine.) If that's an accurate translation, then all I can say is, what a staggering headline on a publication owned by the Washington Post. Foreign editions of American magazines are generally edited independently of their US counterparts. But I'd like to think that it's a somewhat safe assumption that a headline that bold on the cover would at least run be past the home office for approval--and if it wasn't, that raises all sorts of additional questions, doesn't it?

In any case, it's awfully tough to maintain a veneer of objectivity when writing cover stories like that--of course, several individual members of the mainstream media started peeling back that veneer shortly after 9/11 and the rise of Weblogs. And as Glenn writes:

many American journalistic enterprises engage in more America-bashing abroad than at home. I suspect that the Internet will make that much harder, as people are starting to pay attention, and to compare this stuff.
Note that it wasn't a household-name blog that broke this story--but it's been quickly picked up by InstaPundit and Little Green Footballs--and probably numerous other bigtime blogs by the time the dust settles. It's the Long Tail in action, yet again.

Mainstream media is dying a slow death, and the more they kick, scream, and blame others for their failure, they dig their own grave a little deeper.

The Newsweek story reminds me of the stories from the National Enquirer years ago. My mother would get one occasionally for entertainment. They would never quote anyone directly, it would always be "sources say" or "says a friend". It was always a give away that the story was bs. Looks like it still is.

Mainstream media is dying a slow death, and the more they kick, scream, and blame others for their failure, they dig their own grave a little deeper.

Click to expand...

The mainstream media in its current form may be dying (*may* be, this is a veeeery broad statement to make, that the mainstream media, in all its forms and manifestations, is going away), but there will always be a mainstream media, in one form or another.

The mainstream media in its current form may be dying (*may* be, this is a veeeery broad statement to make, that the mainstream media, in all its forms and manifestations, is going away), but there will always be a mainstream media, in one form or another.

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase. The popularity of the mainstream media is dying a slow death. As an example, last year the average person could name the anchors of the big three news broadcasts, even if they didn't watch them. Who are the anchors today? Most probably don't know. Granted, the fact that there are many more options for getting news plays a part, but the current form of so called joarnalism certainly doesn't help.

Mainstream media is dying a slow death, and the more they kick, scream, and blame others for their failure, they dig their own grave a little deeper.

The Newsweek story reminds me of the stories from the National Enquirer years ago. My mother would get one occasionally for entertainment. They would never quote anyone directly, it would always be "sources say" or "says a friend". It was always a give away that the story was bs. Looks like it still is.

Click to expand...

I don't think the MSM is dying, but it is quickly, not slowly, losing any semblance of being a purveyor of honest information. While just glancing around the blogs I came across two example of WHY:

From Newsweek, one gets this, 'It's not OUR fault the Pentagon didn't tell us NOT to print. They then go onto make 'new rules' to prevent this from happening again, unless it's really, really necessary:

A Letter to Our Readers NewsweekMay 30 issue - In the week since our Periscope item about alleged abuse of the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay became a heated topic of national conversation, it will come as no surprise to you that we have been engaged in a great deal of soul-searching and reflection. Since cutting short a trip to Asia on the weekend we published our account of how we reported the story, I have had long talks with our Editor Mark Whitaker, Managing Editor Jon Meacham and other key staff members, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you and to affirmand reaffirmsome important principles that will guide our news gathering in the future.

As most of you know, we have unequivocally retracted our story. In the light of the Pentagon's denials and our source's changing position on the allegation, the only responsible course was to say that we no longer stand by our story.

We have also offered a sincere apology to our readers and especially to anyone affected by violence that may have been related to what we published. To the extent that our story played a role in contributing to such violence, we are deeply sorry.

Let me assure both our readers and our staffers that NEWSWEEK remains every bit as committed to honest, independent and accurate reporting as we always have been. In this case, however, we got an important story wrong, and honor requires us to admit our mistake and redouble our efforts to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

One of the frustrating aspects of our initial inquiry is that we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story. On the basis of what we know now, I've seen nothing to suggest that our people acted unethically or unprofessionally. Veteran reporter Michael Isikoff relied on a well-placed and historically reliable government source. We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Qur'an. Had he objected to the allegations, I am confident that we would have at the very least revised the item, but we mistakenly took the official's silence for confirmation. See, it's NOT OUR FAULT!

It now seems clear that we didn't know enough or do enough before publication, and if our traditional procedures did not prevent the mistake, then it is time to clarify and strengthen a number of our policies.

In the weeks to come we will be reviewing ways to improve our news-gathering processes overall. But after consultations with Mark Whitaker and Jon Meacham, we are taking the following steps now:

We will raise the standards for the use of anonymous sources throughout the magazine. Historically, unnamed sources have helped to break or advance stories of great national importance, but overuse can lead to distrust among readers and carelessness among journalists. As always, the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader. From now on, only the editor or the managing editor, or other top editors they specifically appoint, will have the authority to sign off on the use of an anonymous source.Gee, they needed a new rule for this?

We will step up our commitment to help the reader understand the nature of a confidential source's access to information and his or her reasons for demanding anonymity. As they often are now, the name and position of such a source will be shared upon request with a designated top editor. Our goal is to ensure that we have properly assessed, on a confidential basis, the source's credibility and motives before publishing and to make sure that we characterize the source appropriately. The cryptic phrase "sources said" will never again be the sole attribution for a story in NEWSWEEK.

When information provided by a source wishing to remain anonymous is essential to a sensitive storyalleging misconduct or reflecting a highly contentious point of view, for examplewe pledge a renewed effort to seek a second independent source or other corroborating evidence. When the pursuit of the public interest requires the use of a single confidential source in such a story, we will attempt to provide the comment and the context to the subject of the story in advance of publication for confirmation, denial or correction. Tacit affirmation, by anyone, no matter how highly placed or apparently knowledgeable, will not qualify as a secondary source.

These guidelines on sourcing are clearly related to the Guantanamo story, but this is also a good time to reaffirm several larger principles that guide us as well. We will remain vigilant about making sure that sensitive issues receive the discussion and reflection they deserve. While there will always be the impulse to get an exclusive story into the magazine quickly, we will continue to value accuracy above all else. We are committed to holding stories for as long as necessary in order to be confident of the facts. If that puts us at a competitive disadvantage on any particular story, so be it. The reward, in accuracy and public trust, is more than worth the price. Finally, when we make a mistakeas institutions and individuals inevitably dowe will confront it, correct it quickly and learn from the experience.

I have had the privilege of being part of NEWSWEEK's proud editorial tradition for nearly 35 years. I can assure you that the talented and honorable people who publish NEWSWEEK today are dedicated to making sure that what appears on every page in the magazine is as fair and accurate as it can possibly be. Based on what we know now, we fell short in our story about Guantanamo Bay. Trust is hard won and easily lost, and to our readers, we pledge to earn their renewed confidence by producing the best possible magazine each and every week.

The Qur'an Question
In 31,000 documents the Pentagon has reviewed, there are allegationsbut Defense says none is substantiated.

By Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff

NewsweekMay 30 issue - What really happened at Guantanamo? Last week, amid the heat of the controversy over NEWSWEEK's retracted story, new details about the issue of alleged mistreatment of the Qur'an emerged.

The International Committee of the Red Cross announced that it had provided the Pentagon with confidential reports about U.S. personnel disrespecting or mishandling Qur'ans at Gitmo in 2002 and 2003.This is new how? Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman, said the Red Cross had provided "several" instances that it believed were "credible." The ICRC report included three specific allegations of offensive treatment of the Qur'an by guards. Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita would not comment on these allegations except to say that the Gitmo commanders routinely followed up ICRC reports, including these, and could not substantiate them. He then gave what is from the Defense Department point of view more context and important new information.

It is clear that in 2002, military investigators became frustrated by the unresponsiveness of some high-profile terror suspects, including one who had close contact with the 9/11 hijackers. At the time, fears of another attack from Al Qaeda were running high, and the Pentagon was determined to make the terror suspects talk. The interrogators asked for, and received, Pentagon permission to use tactics like isolation and sleep deprivation. Less clear, however, is what happened to more run-of-the-mill detainees among the 800 or so housed at Guantanamo at the time.and this is where they NOW want us to look.

According to Di Rita, when the first prisons were built for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo in early 2002, prison guards were instructed to respect the detainees' religious rituals. The prisoners were given Qur'ans, which they hung from the walls of their cells in cotton surgical masks provided by the prison. Log entries by the guards indicate that in about a dozen cases, the detainees themselves somehow damaged their Qur'ans. In one case a prisoner allegedly ripped up a Qur'an; in another a prisoner tore the cover off his Qur'an. In three cases, detainees tried to stuff pages from their Qur'ans down their toilets, according to the Defense Department's account of what is in the guards' reports. (NEWSWEEK was not permitted to see the log items.) The log entries do not indicate why the detainees might have done this, said Di Rita, and prison commanders concluded that certain hard-core prisoners would try to agitate the other detainees by alleging disrespect for Muslim articles of faith.

In light of the controversy,Which they fail to note, they created one of these incidents bears special notice. Last week, NEWSWEEK interviewed Command Sgt. John VanNatta, who served as the prison's warden from October 2002 to the fall of 2003. VanNatta recounted that in 2002, the inmates suddenly started yelling that the guards had thrown a Qur'an on or near an Asian-style squat toilet. The guards found an inmate who admitted that he had dropped his Qur'an near his toilet. According to VanNatta, the inmate then was taken cell to cell to explain this to other detainees to quell the unrest. But the incident could partly account for the multiple allegations among detainees, including one by a released British detainee in a lawsuit that claims that guards flushed Qur'ans down toilets.Just so we're clear, they begin by bringing up the Red Cross now they are switching to WHY there may be these rumors. In fact, it may be the prisoners who did these things.

The following explains instances why the prisoners filed complaints. I wonder what Nick Berg would have complained about?

In fewer than a dozen log entries from the 31,000 documents reviewed so far, said Di Rita, there is a mention of detainees' complaining that guards or interrogators mishandled their Qur'ans. In one case, a female guard allegedly knocked a Qur'an from its pouch onto the detainee's bed. In another alleged case, said Di Rita, detainees became upset after two MPs, looking for contraband, felt the pouch containing a prisoner's Qur'an. While questioning a detainee, an interrogator allegedly put a Qur'an on top of a TV set, took it off when the detainee complained, then put it back on. In another alleged instance, guards somehow sprayed water on a detainee's Qur'an. This handful of alleged cases came out of thousands of daily interactions between guards and prisoners, said Di Rita. None has been substantiated yet, he said.

In December 2002, a guard inadvertently knocked a Qur'an from its pouch onto the floor of a detainee's cell, Di Rita said. A number of detainees protested. That January, partly in response to the incident and partly to provide precise guidelines for new guards and interrogators, the Guantanamo commanders issued precise rules to respect the "cultural dignity of the Koran thereby reducing the friction over the searching of the Korans." Only chaplains or Muslim interpreters were allowed to inspect detainees' Qur'ans. "Two hands will be used at all times when handling Korans in a manner signaling respect and reverence," the rules state. "Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas..."

Di Rita said that the Pentagon may look further into the reports found in the logs. The Pentagon is not ruling out the possibility of finding credible reports of Qur'an desecration. But so far, said Di Rita, it has not found any.

I don't think the MSM is dying, but it is quickly, not slowly, losing any semblance of being a purveyor of honest information.

Click to expand...

Agreed. A decade ago, when I was in journalism school, they were proclaiming the death of newspapers tomorrow. Of course, newspapers are still around. So there's a lot of Chicken Little in this area.

But the MSM is being hit hard by the Internet. Chat boards like this, where conservatives gather, conservative blogs that blew up the Dan Rather memogate story... all examples. Now, instead of just fuming about the liberal media to your spouse, you can go into the den, log on to the Internet, and post with others -- and read others -- who agree with you. And that's great. It's democracy in the purest sense.

Of course, I like it for another reason, and that is that whites who are not pleased with the direction of America can gather and vent (and organize). This is quite worrisome to the liberal powers that be.

I don't think the MSM is dying, but it is quickly, not slowly, losing any semblance of being a purveyor of honest information. While just glancing around the blogs I came across two example of WHY:

From Newsweek, one gets this, 'It's not OUR fault the Pentagon didn't tell us NOT to print. They then go onto make 'new rules' to prevent this from happening again, unless it's really, really necessary:

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!